Texas Republicans Rally Behind Muslim Official as Some Try to Oust Him Over Religion

L. Cranston posted:

Jutu posted:

L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

Hey crash, want to read hate go back and read your posts about Republicans. You are doing the same thing you've been doing about the bigots in the dem party.  They can be bigots but no one else can be perceived to be. You can hate Republicans and anything Conservative, but everyone should adore the liberals.  Now, again I ask, has there ever been an intelligent dem posting on here?

Jutu posted:

L. Cranston posted:

Jutu posted:

L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

Hey crash, want to read hate go back and read your posts about Republicans. You are doing the same thing you've been doing about the bigots in the dem party.  They can be bigots but no one else can be perceived to be. You can hate Republicans and anything Conservative, but everyone should adore the liberals.  Now, again I ask, has there ever been an intelligent dem posting on here?

One last time... I'll type slow in hopes you can finally follow logic instead of Republican thinking.

If the judge were Muslim and had the same views, they'd still be against him, regardless of religious preference.

If the Republican leader were a Christian instead of Muslim, the Republicans would have no issue with his leadership.

Thus rendering your claim of 'because he was Catholic' a grandiose attempt at deflecting the issue.

I doubt any form of logic can get past your level of hate, but I did make one last attempt.

To put it in your terms.
One of these two is not like the other.
One of these two is different and not the same.

Maybe that helps.

Except those were not my terms.

L. Cranston posted:

Jutu posted:

L. Cranston posted:

Jutu posted:

L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

Hey crash, want to read hate go back and read your posts about Republicans. You are doing the same thing you've been doing about the bigots in the dem party.  They can be bigots but no one else can be perceived to be. You can hate Republicans and anything Conservative, but everyone should adore the liberals.  Now, again I ask, has there ever been an intelligent dem posting on here?

One last time... I'll type slow in hopes you can finally follow logic instead of Republican thinking.

If the judge were Muslim and had the same views, they'd still be against him, regardless of religious preference.

If the Republican leader were a Christian instead of Muslim, the Republicans would have no issue with his leadership.

Thus rendering your claim of 'because he was Catholic' a grandiose attempt at deflecting the issue.

I doubt any form of logic can get past your level of hate, but I did make one last attempt.

You are ridiculous. The judges all have some religion, yet you are saying the bigoted senators would object the same if he was a Muslim? Bull hockey. They changed an almost 200 year old rule to accommodate a Muslim. You keep wanting to talk about hate. Why are you allowed your hate for Republicans and yet take offense at every objection I make to your silly slanted posts and call those rebuttals  hate? Am I supposed to "love" dems and just let your lies slide???

While, the Republicans objecting to a Muslim member on the party leadership were legally correct, they did not appear to be giving him a fair hearing

As to the members of the Knights of Columbus, the two Senators were both bigots and acting in an unconstitutional manner.  Did they forget Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution -- "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

If the man took the oath of the Knights of Columbus  and intends to honor the oath, then he can't uphold current laws.
What part of that is 'a test for public office'?

Denying a person a position because of race, creed, religion, or national origin is illegal.

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Now the dems think they have the say in whether or not a certain religion can hold office.

Jutu posted:

direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Now the dems think they have the say in whether or not a certain religion can hold office.

That's nothing. Republicans think you have to be Christian to be Republican.

direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Harris and Hirono should resign.

Jutu posted:

direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Harris and Hirono should resign.

At a minimum, they should be treated like Representative Steve King (R, Iowa) and be removed from all committees, permanently.  Which would leave them almost powerless and useless to lobbyists.